"Queer & Catholic"

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

The band Scissor Sisters didn't name themselves after sharp bladed objects to sound dangerous and edgy.

I knew that.

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

I agree, but the law doesn't, at least not yet. So some types of sex remain more equal than others.

Some kinds of sexual relations are so undervalued that they are just not recognised as important enough to bother with legislation.

Or, one doesn't want to acknowledge them...

Many, many years ago I was reading the various documents held at Kew about the 1885 Labouchere amendment (Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act) which brought in the specifically anti-male homosexuality 'gross indecency' offense which Oscar Wilde fell foul off and was wondering why it didn't include Lesbianism.

The myth is that it did but Victoria wouldn't sign it as she didn't believe laydees would do such a thing, but that is nonsense as Victoria had no right to veto legislation. The documents make it clear that the framers of the legislation didn't want to publicise that female + female sex was possible so decided the best course of action was to pretend it didn't exist. One can't legislate against something that doesn't exist now can one?

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Many, many years ago I was reading the various documents held at Kew about the 1885 Labouchere amendment (Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act) which brought in the specifically anti-male homosexuality 'gross indecency' offense which Oscar Wilde fell foul off and was wondering why it didn't include Lesbianism.

The myth is that it did but Victoria wouldn't sign it as she didn't believe laydees would do such a thing, but that is nonsense as Victoria had no right to veto legislation.

Agreed.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The documents make it clear that the framers of the legislation didn't want to publicise that female + female sex was possible so decided the best course of action was to pretend it didn't exist. One can't legislate against something that doesn't exist now can one?

I suspect there were a couple of factors at play.

One is that an all-male Parliament couldn’t really bring itself to believe that there could be real sexual pleasure in a transaction that didn’t have the mighty phallus involved at some point. Therefore there was no such thing as lesbian frolics, therefore no need for legislation about them.

A variant on this is the belief that, whatever went on between, ahem, like-minded laydees, since there was no phallus involved it obviously wasn’t real sex, therefore not so important and/or not so wicked, therefore no need for legislation.


Yet another variation is that, whether it was sex or not, it wasn’t that important since there was only women involved and, well, women are only women, and what they do is of lesser significance. Men own property and property is power and property descends to heirs, and if a man discovers that he likes the mickey he might end up not having any heirs, and then where will we be? In other words, men’s deviant sexuality was seem as more threatening to the social order than women’s.

On a more prosaic level, you just didn’t have girls-only brothels catering to women, or lust-crazed lesbians roaming Hampstead Heath and frightening the horses. And like-minded laydees were not subverting military discipline and order by paying handsome young guardsmen for a fumble in the bushes in St. James’s Park. In short, lesbian relationships, whether they existed or not, or whether you thought they involved real sex or not, just didn’t seem to be causing the kind of social disruption that required attention from the criminal law.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Agreed.


I suspect there were a couple of factors at play.

One is that an all-male Parliament couldn’t really bring itself to believe that there could be real sexual pleasure in a transaction that didn’t have the mighty phallus involved at some point. Therefore there was no such thing as lesbian frolics, therefore no need for legislation about them.

A variant on this is the belief that, whatever went on between, ahem, like-minded laydees, since there was no phallus involved it obviously wasn’t real sex, therefore not so important and/or not so wicked, therefore no need for legislation.


Yet another variation is that, whether it was sex or not, it wasn’t that important since there was only women involved and, well, women are only women, and what they do is of lesser significance. Men own property and property is power and property descends to heirs, and if a man discovers that he likes the mickey he might end up not having any heirs, and then where will we be? In other words, men’s deviant sexuality was seem as more threatening to the social order than women’s.

On a more prosaic level, you just didn’t have girls-only brothels catering to women, or lust-crazed lesbians roaming Hampstead Heath and frightening the horses. And like-minded laydees were not subverting military discipline and order by paying handsome young guardsmen for a fumble in the bushes in St. James’s Park. In short, lesbian relationships, whether they existed or not, or whether you thought they involved real sex or not, just didn’t seem to be causing the kind of social disruption that required attention from the criminal law.

Oh, they knew it was possible alright and the records are very clear that they were primarily concerned with not letting this dangerous information out. It was felt that as women had few legal rights the issue could be contained by existing legislation so the more prudent course was to simply pretend it did not exist and therefore ensure it did not gain publicity.

If lesbianism had been included in the legislation this would have been a public acknowledgement by the government it was possible for two woman to have sex, was bound to be discussed as not only could women read, since 1870 there was a college just for them (Newnham College at Cambridge) so educated women were bound to find out and talk about it and...and this is what they feared...try it. :eek:

aloyisious

This might sound strange, but I see no clash of faith in being queer and catholic. So far as I'm concerned, being catholic is being christian. Christianity depends on believing in God. If you believe in God, then you believe that God is responsible for your existence.

Any person who professed to being catholic and claimed one cannot be queer and catholic is faced with the dilemma of that being equal to saying that God screwed-up in creation, that God got it wrong. Any other given/quoted explanation for you being queer faces the "where did you come from, what ****ed you up" dilemma. I'm not going to bother being the dog chasing it's own tail, I just accept what I am and get on with the life given me, **** the semantics.

28064212

aloyisious wrote: »

Being catholic is being christian. Christianity depends on believing in God.

Those two sentences are both true. But it is not a complete statement. Being Catholic also depends on believing in the RCC, and that the doctrines and interpretations it presents are infallible. Which means believing that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion

Christian and gay is not necessarily an oxymoron. Catholic and gay is.

Bannasidhe

28064212 wrote: »

Those two sentences are both true. But it is not a complete statement. Being Catholic also depends on believing in the RCC, and that the doctrines and interpretations it presents is infallible. Which means believing that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion

Christian and gay is not necessarily an oxymoron. Catholic and gay is.

Or to be more precise:

Christian and gay is not necessarily an oxymoron. Practicing Catholic and sexually active gay is.

seamus

IMO if you are to examine it more rationally, "Christian" is really a form of religious weasel word. At the simplest level, a "Christian" is someone who believes in and tries to adhere to the principles of Jesus Christ.

But when you start to dig down into what that actually means, you find that much of the basis for his principles and his existence, are derived from the Old Testament, the whole "dying for our sins" stuff, etc. Thus it's intellectually dishonest to say that you do not regard the OT as factual truth, but you do regard the new testament as factual truth, because the OT is the scaffold on which the NT is based. Kick that down and the teachings and principles of Jesus become nothing more than stories.

That doesn't mean you can't derive some good messages from the stories - love thy neighbour, etc - but it means that you cannot fundamentally call yourself "Christian" while at the same time believing that the OT is a book of fairy tales. That's like saying the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is an historical document, but The Fellowship of the Ring is just a old fable.

Now, of course, someone could be intellectually honest and say that they don't believe the Jesus myth, but they still try to adhere to the principles of the myth because they think it's just a good idea. But I'd say you'll find very few "Christians" willing to admit to this.

oldrnwisr

aloyisious wrote: »

This might sound strange, but I see no clash of faith in being queer and catholic.

You mightn't but the Catholic Church sure does. It repeatedly condemns homosexuality and campaigns against gay rights.

aloyisious wrote: »

So far as I'm concerned, being catholic is being christian. Christianity depends on believing in God.

Well, no.

In short, all catholics are christian but not all christians are catholic.

To put it another way, while Christianity depends on believing in Jesus alone, Catholicism adds another layer of requirements on top of this. While mainstream Christians believe that it's just you, the bible and Jesus, Catholics believe that the bible can only be interpreted fully and correctly by the Church. As some Catholic bloggers have put it, just as the old testament should be viewed in light of the new testament by Christians, for Catholics, the bible should be viewed in light of church teachings.

aloyisious wrote: »

If you believe in God, then you believe that God is responsible for your existence.

Again, no.

Your conclusion doesn't flow from your premise that Christianity depends on believing in God. You can be a Christian, even a Catholic without believing that God was directly responsible for your existence. Unless of course, you mean responsible in the sense of kick-starting the Universe and consequently the process that would eventually lead to your existence but that would be a bit pointless.

aloyisious wrote: »

Any person who professed to being catholic and claimed one cannot be queer and catholic is faced with the dilemma of that being equal to saying that God screwed-up in creation, that God got it wrong.

Only if you are a creationist or have literalist leanings. As above, being Christian or even Catholic doesn't require such a direct intervention by God in the path of human biology and evolution. Ken Miller, for example, is a Catholic and would have no problem in accepting a naturalistic explanation for homosexuality.

If you're going to take the line that God hates homosexuality and yet it exists, therefore he screwed up, then you might want to start this line of reasoning back a bit further. God also has a problem with evil and sin and yet both of these, according to the Bible, entered the world. Did he screw up, not give a crap or was he powerless to prevent it?


Anyway, like I said in my last post, if you're a Catholic, that means you are (supposed to be) faithful to church teachings, one of which is that homosexuality is really, really bad. Sometimes semantics are important.

aloyisious

I just looked up "did God say the Pope was infallible" and found that infallibility applies to the office of the Pope (and not the Pope) and pronouncements made by him on matters of faith and morals. he must first seek guidance of God, through Christ, on the matter.

What is the gift of infallibility?

The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement.

robindch

aloyisious wrote: »

If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement.

I think it would be fair to say that these fine distinctions are lost on most catholics, just as much as they are on non-catholics.

ShooterSF

aloyisious wrote: »

Any person who professed to being catholic and claimed one cannot be queer and catholic is faced with the dilemma of that being equal to saying that God screwed-up in creation, that God got it wrong.

Indeed that seems like a logical problem but even Jesus (who Christianity teaches is one and the same as god) had no problem condemning creation for being as it was. Look no further than the humble fig tree. It was created to produce figs during a limited period of the year but that didn't stop Jesus from cursing it for not producing figs out of season.

From the gospel of Mark,
"The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it."

Now that leaves (no pun intended) some serious questions over whether the christian god does create things one way and then curse them for behaving as it created or if it actually did make mistakes in their creation and then blames them for it. Just because it seems irrational to you or I doesn't mean the christian god doesn't do it, no one ever claimed rationality was one of it's characteristics!

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I think it would be fair to say that these fine distinctions are lost on most catholics, just as much as they are on non-catholics.

I don't think it would be fair, actually.

Everyone knows that various popes have rules that the practice of contraception is evil, etc, etc.

Everyone also knows that the great bulk of sexually active Catholics do in fact practice contraception, and it's my impression that most Catholics who are not sexually active would practice contraception if the occasion arose for them.

That's kind of difficult to reconcile with the notion that most Catholics think that everything popes say is infallibly true. They clearly don't think that.

Nodin

It would be interesting if some genuine research was done, across a few countries, with regards to what is and is not actually known and believed.

Albertofrog

I'm catholic.
I've gay friends whom I care about
Does that make me a bad catholic or a decent person?

Peregrinus

Nodin wrote: »

It would be interesting if some genuine research was done, across a few countries, with regards to what is and is not actually known and believed.

Oh, there's masses of it. Just google "survey infallibility" for a few pointers on where to start looking. Your problem, I think, will be lots of small scale, diverse surveys asking different questions and with non-comparable survey groups (and varying standards of academic rigour), and trying to turn this into something that gives information that can fairly be compared across different groups. Also some of the surveys focus on establishing exactly what it is that people believe, but most seem to be more interested in establishing how strongly people beleive whatever it is they believe, so when they ask people about their beliefs in, e.g. infallibity, they don;t necessarily define a particular belief about infallibility; they just ask them how strongly they accept or reject a statement that, e.g., "Catholics are required to accept and do everything the Pope says", which of course rolls up infalliblity and obedience as one item, and also of course could be answered differently depending on whether you take the question to be about what the church teachers, or about what you have to accept to consider yourself a Catholic, or about what you do in fact accept.

Having said all that, I'm sure if you dig there is solid research conducted by academic sociologists of religion that will cover the degree to which church teachings are understood by adherents.

Hotblack Desiato

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In short, all catholics are christian but not all christians are catholic.

That depends

The Church of Ireland describes itself as a Catholic church (as do the Anglican churches) - 'Catholic and Reformed' but do not recognise the primacy of Rome, infallibility etc. but in fairness most of this is clearly man-made doctrine and quite recent.

There are Christians who maintain that the RCC isn't Christian. (ex-)Pope Benedict doesn't believe that Protestants are really Christian.

To put it another way, while Christianity depends on believing in Jesus alone,

Ah, but they all have their own baggage, whether it's the papacy or no papacy, which version(s) of scripture are acceptable, which interpretations of that scripture are acceptable, which totally made up stuff with no scriptural basis is required, even down to the one-church outfits in the US who maintain that only their pastor knows the true path to salvation and all others are doomed.

If you're going to take the line that God hates homosexuality and yet it exists, therefore he screwed up, then you might want to start this line of reasoning back a bit further. God also has a problem with evil and sin and yet both of these, according to the Bible, entered the world. Did he screw up, not give a crap or was he powerless to prevent it?

Epicurus dealt quite well with that one a very long time ago

Nodin

Albertofrog wrote: »

I'm catholic.
I've gay friends whom I care about
Does that make me a bad catholic or a decent person?

.....in theory you're supposed to love the "sinner" while hating the "sin". I think. I'm so long a hairy arsed heathen my knowledge of these things (unaided by google) is slim.

Peregrinus

Albertofrog wrote: »

I'm catholic.
I've gay friends whom I care about
Does that make me a bad catholic or a decent person?

No, it makes you a decent person and a good Catholic. And you'd be an even better Catholic if you cared about gay people who aren't your friends.

Catholic teaching is that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and that"every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". (Even though a homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered" and homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered".)

Schizoid much? Possibly. But if you're asking, as the OP does, how somebody can possibly see himself as both gay and Catholic, well, maybe this is part of the answer.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's kind of difficult to reconcile with the notion that most Catholics think that everything popes say is infallibly true. They clearly don't think that.

Look up Cognitive dissonance. People in this country who self-describe as "catholics" seem to suffer from it more than most.

krudler

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it makes you a decent person and a good Catholic. And you'd be an even better Catholic if you cared about gay people who aren't your friends.

Catholic teaching is that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and that"every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". (Even though a homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered" and homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered".)

Schizoid much? Possibly. But if you're asking, as the OP does, how somebody can possibly see himself as both gay and Catholic, well, maybe this is part of the answer.

Even though the church itself does nothing of the sort? youre disordered and an evil on the world, but we respect you. what utter bull****.

PopePalpatine

Oh, and don't forget that if you want an audience with the Pope, devising a bill which would make homosexuality punishable by death is a good way to get that.

TwoShedsJackson

Perhaps real life intervened, but it's interesting that since the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality, and what they require you to believe to be a true Catholic was pointed out to witchgirl26, she has vanished.

aloyisious

Albertofrog wrote: »

I'm catholic.
I've gay friends whom I care about
Does that make me a bad catholic or a decent person?

A true follower of Christ, who had no problem with interacting or conversing with people whom "decent" people would cross the street to avoid.

SebBerkovich

aloyisious wrote: »

A true follower of Christ, who had no problem with interacting or conversing with people whom "decent" people would cross the street to avoid.

I know plenty of "decent" christians that would cross the city to avoid "interacting or conversing" with those Concern folks....

aloyisious

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I know plenty of "decent" christians that would cross the city to avoid "interacting or conversing" with those Concern folks....

True, true!